Britain has changed dramatically since the Queen was crowned in 1953. Cole
Moreton reports on the Church’s plans to update the ceremony

There are some things you just don’t talk about, and the crowning of the next king is one of them. It would be “impolite” to start planning a coronation while the existing monarch is still alive, I was told last week by one of those who may be involved when the time comes. Quite right, too. As the Queen prepares to celebrate the 60th anniversary of her Coronation on June 2 1953, it is to be hoped that she will go on and on. But that’s not to say that those concerned have neglected to think about what might come next.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned of a major shift in attitude within the leadership of the Church, towards allowing the representatives of other faiths to participate in a coronation service for the first time. This would be a dramatic break with tradition, as the coronation has been an exclusively Christian event for 1,000 years. In the past, any such move was strongly opposed by the Church of England. There is now, however, a recognition that the next coronation will have to reflect the spiritual diversity of modern Britain in some way.

The ethnic and cultural make-up of the country has changed greatly since 1953, when the ceremony reflected the long-established notion of Britain as a nation under one God. Sixty years later, Her Majesty reigns over a nation with many gods. There are still 33 million people who call themselves Christian (including Roman Catholics, who were not represented in the service in 1953). There are also 2.7 million Muslims, 817,000 Hindus and 263,000 Jews, and many others.

In view of this, The Sunday Telegraph understands that Church leaders have accepted the need to be “hospitable” to other faiths within the service. They believe this will have to happen, although it must be done very carefully.

There is no question of a multi-faith service in which all gods are considered equal. The sacred central acts of the coronation must remain intact, and the service entirely Christian – but within that framework it should be possible to “recognise” other faiths, perhaps by allowing their representatives to take part in symbolic acts, such as the lighting of candles.

There was horror in some Christian circles seven years ago when it was reported that the Prince of Wales might like a multi-faith service to follow his coronation ceremony, with prayers and readings by Muslims, Sikhs and Jews. “We should not pander to political correctness,” said one member of the General Synod, the Church’s governing body.

The official response of the Church of England in 2006 was to put out a statement reminding everyone that this was an exclusively Anglican service and the Archbishop of Canterbury would be responsible for writing it, as he had been since 1066.

After that came a lockdown, which continues today. A spokesman for the Church said yesterday that it would not discuss any plans for a future coronation.

Privately, however, senior figures accept the need to change. One guidance paper produced for parish priests who wish to allow people of other faiths to participate in a Christian service suggests that they are asked to carry out an act such as lighting a candle, placing a stone or planting a seed, rather than praying out loud. It also suggests they read a passage that expresses common values, rather than from their own sacred texts.

The inclusion of any such acts in a coronation service would be a major break with the past, says Dr Robert Morris of the Constitution Unit at University College, London. “Essentially, the last Coronation was a straight rerun of what had gone before, over the centuries. It was an Anglican Christian service. No Popery allowed, etc. The only alteration was that the Moderator of the Church of Scotland was allowed to come on and present a Bible to the Queen. That was a big thing in 1953. The Archbishop of Canterbury refused to give space to any of the other churches, let alone faiths. So they have a long way to go.”

Some of the language of the ceremony is laid down in law, such as the Coronation Oath Act of 1689, which says the monarch must swear to uphold the Protestant faith. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website says “the form and order of the service are ancient in origin but not immutable”.

The new Archbishop, the Most Rev Justin Welby, showed his willingness to tweak tradition in March when he changed his enthronement at Canterbury Cathedral into an inauguration without many people noticing. He will write the service when the time comes, but not without help.

The Dean of Westminster, Dr John Hall, has the right to instruct the Sovereign in relation to the coronation, which will take place under his roof at Westminster Abbey. The Dean attracted criticism seven years ago when he broke ranks to suggest that something might be done in the service itself, saying: “The coronation service needs to find the right way of including people of other faiths.” He was not available for comment this week, but the Abbey has hosted many multi-faith services.

In 1953, Britain was still putting itself back together again. In a country emerging from the darkness of war, here was a spectacle to inspire people and show that Britain could still be Great. A service designed to reassure that all was as it should be: Church, Crown and State working together under the strong direction of the Christian God.

The central acts of the coronation cannot be changed without changing the law but there was a lot of pomp and ceremony in the three-hour service of 1953 that may be left out in the name of austerity.

“The coronation itself can’t be the same sort of spectacle it was in 1953,” says Dr Morris. “We haven’t got enough soldiers to line the route, let alone bandsmen. That was the last imperial coronation.”

There will be no chance of closing Westminster Abbey for five months to prepare for the ceremony, as they did in 1953. The loss of income from visitors would be far too great. Instead of 8,000 people cramming into the Abbey, the capacity will be 2,000.

The television audience will be vast. The need to represent the beliefs and aspirations of people beyond Britain will be pressing, as Commonwealth leaders consider whether to allow the new king to lead them. The debate about why we are doing this, how much it costs and what the monarch is for, will be fierce.

There will be, says Dr Morris, a case for simplifying the Christian ceremony and supplementing it with other events. “There is a question of how the monarch should be seen to relate ceremonially, not only to his Anglican subjects, but also the rest of the population. There is a case for considering a series of essentially secular ceremonies, in which the monarch shows himself for acclamation to the rest of the population.”

It would also put great strain on the ties between Church, State and Crown, some of which have snapped or are snapping already. To the Church, however, there is another precious dimension to the coronation. One senior figure described it to me this week as an ordination, an act of setting someone apart for a sacred purpose.

Unusually, perhaps, in terms of her predecessors, Queen Elizabeth came to her Coronation as a woman of deep personal faith. That continues to be the case, although she is certainly not uncomfortable in multi-faith services. It was Her Majesty who reminded the Church of England in a remarkable speech last year that it is not just there to serve Christians.

“Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions,” she said. “Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.”

That belief is shared by Prince Charles, whether or not he really intends to be known as Defender of Faith per se

– as has been reported – or Defender of the Faith, as and when he becomes Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

His official website was revamped last year to include a section for Frequently Asked Questions, which says: “Contrary to some press reports claiming that the Prince wants to hold a multi-faith coronation when he becomes king, His Royal Highness has not been involved in any discussions or planning for the next coronation, and is very unlikely to give any consideration to the coronation during the present reign.”

He is not alone in maintaining a discreet silence, which is right and proper. But neither would the Prince be alone if he sometimes offered up a prayer, privately, for strength and wisdom in dealing with what is to come.